« CBS reporter sexually attacked in Egypt (UPDATED) | Main | May we live in interesting times »

No WMD? BFD.

Well, a lot of people are talking about the latest news about the Iraq invasion. It seems that one of the key intelligence sources -- an Iraqi defector who worked with German intelligence and code-named "Curveball" -- has admitted that he lied when he definitively said that Saddam had mobile chemical and biological weapons laboratories, and factories set up to produce them.

My response? Shrug.

First up, some folks are focusing on his German-assigned code name as an indicator that the Germans didn't trust him from the outset. I dismiss that one; it's long been known that intelligence agencies use random, meaningless code names (unless they want to make it public) to avoid just these sorts of implications from getting out. So I give the name "curveball" as a coincidence.

Far more important, though, I live in an alternate universe.

In my universe, things unfolded a little bit differently. First up, no official in the Bush administration ever stated definitively stated that Saddam had WMDs. They stated -- truthfully -- that under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire from the first Gulf War, he had to surrender and destroy all WMD stocks, research material, and foreswear any future developments. Further, the burden of proof was on him; we didn't have to prove he had them, he had to prove he didn't.

Next, in my universe, the WMD issue was not the whole justification for the invasion. It was not even the main one. It was one of 23 justifications, as passed by Congress (with the votes of such worthies as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, among others).

Also in my universe, no one in the Bush administration ever tried to tie Saddam to 9/11. Yes, they cited connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but they proved those pretty conclusively. Al Qaeda was just one of the numerous Islamist terrorist groups that Saddam supported.

As I said, that's how things played out in my universe. How do I tell my universe apart from the universe constructed by the left?

In my universe, President Bush never had a goatee.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41117.

Comments (120)

Precisely. The idiots on th... (Below threshold)
Brett :

Precisely. The idiots on the left started the "Bush lied" meme, but a whole lot of people seemed to forget that it was utter and complete bullshit.

So he admitted he's a liar ... (Below threshold)
Hank:

So he admitted he's a liar and we should believe him?

I'm thinking he just saw the movie "Fair Game" and wants in on the action.

just Google Iraq, yellowcak... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

just Google Iraq, yellowcake and Canada if you still don't think Saddam wasn't trying for WMD's ...

so he was one of the 4 peop... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

so he was one of the 4 people in America that saw Fair Game ?

And this "news" story means... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

And this "news" story means....what? That anything a defector says is suspect? Who knew.

"Far more important, though... (Below threshold)
fixer:

"Far more important, though, I live in an alternate universe."

No shit, Sherlock.

And today's gold medal for ... (Below threshold)

And today's gold medal for missing the punchline goes to fixer, who missed the last line of the piece.

Congrats, fixer! Wear it with pride!

J.

First up, no official in... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

First up, no official in the Bush administration ever stated definitively stated that Saddam had WMDs.

Jay, the Bush administration made numerous statements that Iraq definitively had weapons of mass destruction.

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

You wanna cite your sources... (Below threshold)

You wanna cite your sources for those, Tina?

J.

Seen it, J. Cute.H... (Below threshold)
fixer:

Seen it, J. Cute.

Has no bearing on the fact that you do, indeed, live in an alternate universe.

And Tina S, you left out the best part of Rummys quote.


"We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat...."

I think he and JT share the same alternate universe.

WMD BFD Since 1991 ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

WMD BFD
Since 1991 Clinton for 8 years talked about regime change in Iraq yet did nothing along with the Dem party.

The issue was that Sadam wanted the world to believe he had WMDs.
Why because he was making money hand over feast because of the UN Oil for Food SCAM.
Russia admitted that Iraq had plans to attack the USA with suicide bombers.

If Bush did not attack Iraq and one American died because of the attack the left would have complained that we ignored the intelligence.

The won flew over fixers cu... (Below threshold)
914:

The won flew over fixers cuckoo nest and no one was home.

Jay may have been wrong abo... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Jay may have been wrong about that statement but as hcddbz states, BFD.

If the underwear bomber, Abdulmutallab, was charged with attempting to use a WMD, then all the stupid criticism by the left over this issue and the Iraq war is moot.

Tina likes to cut an paste ... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Tina likes to cut an paste from left wing web sites.

Next, in my universe, th... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Next, in my universe, the WMD issue was not the whole justification for the invasion. It was not even the main one.

It's possible you might feel different if you had enlisted in the military and fought in Iraq based on the WMD issue or the belief that Sadaam helped in carrying out 9/11. Even after admiting there was no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 911, the Bush administration frequently continued to imply they did.

So here we have yet another... (Below threshold)

So here we have yet another incidence of the same pattern I mentioned previously:

1. right-wing blogger at Wizbang makes a statement that is factually, provably wrong. And in fact, stunning in it's complete misremembering of recent history that we all lived through.

First up, no official in the Bush administration ever stated definitively stated that Saddam had WMDs.

2. someone who's not right-wing proves this statement is completely wrong, with quotes.

Jay, the Bush administration made numerous statements that Iraq definitively had weapons of mass destruction.

3. this information has **ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT**.

The closest to an effect is Jay asking for citations. Well, here they are Jay. I found them by pasting the quotes into The Google:

a). http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=61017 ' - Transcript of Ari Fleischer. "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

b). http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-17/world/sprj.irq.bush.transcript_1_weapons-inspectors-iraq-regime-disarmament?_s=PM:WORLD - Transcript of Bush's speech.

c). http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/richard-cheney-saddam-hussein-is-a-danger-to-world-peace-641150.html - transcript of Darth Cheney's comments.

I think you're capable of looking up the rest yourself.

So Jay - now that your article is wrong, will you correct how it's wrong?

Or will you just continue with "It doesn't matter anyway - " in the face of this proof that a Presidential administration not only lied to the public, but lied to the public in order to:

- get us into a war an unneeded war of choice that's killed THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS
- caused us to split our attention from the actual terrorist murderers, who now run free and thumb their noses at us!!!

I mean, Jesus Christ people!

I know it must be irritating as hell to admit that liberals are sometimes right. But the facts show they were. Are you just going to keep marching in denial?

I am at a freaking loss here.

Now that you can see (once again) that the Bush administration did lie, will the next tack be that these lies don't matter?

And Hank, wow.Beca... (Below threshold)

And Hank, wow.

Because of an underwear bomber in 2009, we had to invade Iraq in 2003? Show me that flowchart. How the hell does that connect?

This thread demonstrates wh... (Below threshold)
davidt:

This thread demonstrates why The Guardian has published this story.

"Bush lied," was a successful attack and the left needs to dredge it up again to try to counter recent successes of the right.

Sodom deserved to die jim x... (Below threshold)
914:

Sodom deserved to die jim x. I would have opted for a surgical strike to take him and his ghouls out, but thats neither here nor there.

"I know it must be irritating as hell to admit that liberals are sometimes right. But the facts show they were."


Like hell they were or are.

My point, jim x was that th... (Below threshold)
Hank:

My point, jim x was that the left uses a constantly changing definition of WMD.

During the Iraq war, coalition forces did find approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
This was, of course, discounted by the left.

Yet a few years later, Abdulmutallab was charged with attempting to use a WMD with his underwear explosives. The left had no problem with this classification. As such, using this standard, shouldn’t all those thousands of pounds of mortars, bombs, missiles, gases, etc in Iraq count as WMDs?

No need to answer.

I wonder if jim x and tina ... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

I wonder if jim x and tina s collect checks from Barry Soetoro's OFA, or Moron.org or some Soro's funded astroturf org.

Most likely TexBob. Or els... (Below threshold)
914:

Most likely TexBob. Or else they have a union job with ACORN or GM, or, they are as stupid as their posts and support the job loser in chief regardless of his inept fumbling.

As a poster stated on here last week. Barry is like a fish out of the bowl doing the crappy flop on all issues foreign and domestic.

My point, jim x wa... (Below threshold)
My point, jim x was that the left uses a constantly changing definition of WMD.

If that's your point, then it doesn't follow - because that wasn't the Left. That was the US prosecuting the mook under US law.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/may/05/why-bomb-suspect-was-charged-with-trying-to-use-wmd/

But there I am, using fact-y things again.

Texbob and 914, any time yo... (Below threshold)

Texbob and 914, any time you want to prove anything I've posted here wrong, go for it.

See, I do this thing where I try to research things and make sure I'm right **before** I talk about it.

Me: "I know it must be irri... (Below threshold)

Me: "I know it must be irritating as hell to admit that liberals are sometimes right. But the facts show they were. Are you just going to keep marching in denial?"

You: "Like hell they were or are."

Denial it is! Good luck marching off that cliff. I'll be over here, actually looking at a map.

"Good luck marching off tha... (Below threshold)
914:

"Good luck marching off that cliff. I'll be over here, actually looking at a map."


Wouldn't it be easier to look at a teleprompter like your hero does?

Seriously 914?You ... (Below threshold)

Seriously 914?

You make my point even when you're making a joke. The denial here is so thick...

The staggering amount of complete and total gaffes that GWB had, and his utter dependence on teleprompters and speechwriters - and I'm supposed to be embarrassed because Obama occasionally flubs something?

Just, wow.

"The staggering amount of c... (Below threshold)
914:

"The staggering amount of complete and total gaffes that GWB had"


Are dwarfed by the most incompetent buffoon ever to assume the Presidency.

Jim X,I looked at ... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

Jim X,

I looked at the links you provided. The Ari Fleischer is misleading. He explains why they say Saddam had WMD as a fact. It was because Saddam had not proved he had destroyed them. Pays to read the entire article.

President Bush stated "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people." If he is giving the information that he has how is that wrong. Pays to read the article.

The "Darth"(no bias on your part) Cheney article you link is only a portion of the speech he gave, and again while he stated that Saddam has WMD's it is based on the fact that Saddam has used them before and had not proven that they where all destroyed and even quoted findings showing that Saddam was doing his best to hide WMD programs from the inspectors. Again I say it better to read the full article before you quote it.

jim x, good luck trying to ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

jim x, good luck trying to convince the Dumbest Motherfuckers On The Planet™ of anything that contradicts their own understanding of history.

They will justify the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country by whatever means necessary after the fact. In fact, they get annoyed when asked to justify it. Saddam Hussein was an evil person and therefore nothing else matters, ever.

Also, they will assume that you're a paid troll bankrolled by George Soros, because anyone who painstakingly and coherently explains to a wingnut why their perception of reality is off the mark must be a member of MoveOn.org's sinister team of people who have access to Wikipedia and functioning memories.

Jay, this is a truly stunni... (Below threshold)
john:

Jay, this is a truly stunning post. You most assuredly live in an alternate universe. How the hell did you come up with the spectacularly impressive denial that anyone ever said Iraq had WMD? And when that claim was handily clobbered, your only response is to ask for citations that you could have easily Googled yourself?

Then you claim that WMD was not the main justification for the invasion. Your "evidence" for this is that when they filed the formal Iraq Resolution in Congress, they took the opportunity to throw the kitchen sink at Saddam. Nevermind the relentless WMD rhetoric from the Bush administration at the time. Maybe you should read Bush's speech at the start of the war:

"Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. "We will meet that threat now with our army, air force, navy, coastguard and marines so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

I'll let you Google it yourself, and you can see that it was indeed the "main" justification. In fact, the only other justification was a single mention of "to free [Iraq's] people". Seems pretty "main" to me.

I should not be shocked that the when the main point the right has been peddling since day one is shown to be false, your immediate reaction is to minimize the reliance on that point. To this day you still have people on Wizbang insisting that every time a firecracker is unearthed in Iraq that it proves that WMD existed.

How do you tell your universe apart from the universe constructed by the left? I have no idea. But it's pretty easy to tell your universe apart from the real one.

No drooling allowed hyperge... (Below threshold)
914:

No drooling allowed hypergerbilist.

No, John, you are misrememb... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

No, John, you are misremembering. The complaint from the left was Bush was giving too many justifications and he needed to settle on one. But, most assuredly WMD was not the only one. How about the fact he was shooting missiles and US planes patrolling the no fly zone? How about Saddam not complying with proving the destruction of all WMD?

Besides that,we have the documented revival of something by the Russians just prior to the invasion as well as the convoys going into Syria two nights before.

WMD aside, it was a righteo... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

WMD aside, it was a righteous war.

Don't have the time or inclination to bark back at anyone still riding their Bush-Hate high.

He explains why th... (Below threshold)
He explains why they say Saddam had WMD as a fact. It was because Saddam had not proved he had destroyed them.

Let's say I even accept that rationale for **why** they said Saddam's current WMD's were known to exist.

How does that change the reality that **what** they said wasn't true?

Because Saddam's WMD's **weren't** known to exist. They were at best suspected. And as this article itself points out, that suspicion was based on flimy lies from sources other nations weren't eager enough to seize upon.

Let's put in other terms:

If I were to say that it's a proven fact Mitt Romney has a third arm, when no one can see that arm and he's been repeatedly inspected, wouldn't I be lying?

Can't you see that saying something is certain and true, when you are NOT certain it is true, is a lie?

I don't understand the disconnect here. Please explain it to me. How can it possibly be any other way?

Are dwarfed by the... (Below threshold)
Are dwarfed by the most incompetent buffoon ever to assume the Presidency.

Well I guess we agree there. GWB's buffoonery is so great that he transcends space and time to dwarf his own buffoonery. It's like a fractal of incompetence.

Jim, how can you say that??... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Jim, how can you say that???? Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds and on the Iranians. Clearly WMD existed. To claim otherwise is insanity.

Rick, sigh! Yes, Saddam had... (Below threshold)

Rick, sigh! Yes, Saddam had that gas - in 1988!

No one was claiming that Saddam **never** had WMD's. In the run up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, the issue was whether or not he had WMD's **now**.

Saddam was repeatedly inspected by teams of international experts, including ex-Marine Scott Ritter - and no WMD's were turned up. Even further, no evidence of any existing weapons programs were turned up. They went so far as to search his own palace - nothing.

Therefore for people to say that Saddam's current WMD was **Certain to currently exist** when in fact there is **no actual proof that it currently exists** is lying, right?

Please explain how that could not be lying.

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that the Bush administration lied?

"Can't you see that saying ... (Below threshold)
914:

"Can't you see that saying something is certain and true, when you are NOT certain it is true, is a lie?"


Yeah, kind of like Barry saying the economy's growing right?

But in hindsight he used them on the kurds so I think they would beg to differ with you? That is, if they were alive to do so.

No, John, you are misrem... (Below threshold)
john:

No, John, you are misremembering. The complaint from the left was Bush was giving too many justifications and he needed to settle on one.

You're the one misremembering. It's true that Bush shifted his justification, but that was over time, settling on new justifications as each previous one was proven false.

www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1015-07.htm

I mean, my God Rick, that's... (Below threshold)

I mean, my God Rick, that's like saying I had a drink 14 years ago, therefore I must be having a drink right now. Or any other metaphor you like.

Don't you see how that doesn't map at all?

Why do you guys think this way? And why do you hold onto thinking this way so hard - in the face of contradicting facts?

Seriously, you guys do this all the time. CONSTANTLY.

I know you all have functioning jobs. I know you don't drive to work thinking "My boss paid me $5.35 an hour 14 years ago. Therefore that's what he should pay me now."

Why when it comes to politics, do you guys here completely deny any facts that might lead you to change your mind? Can you see how that puts you into a skewed view of the world that can't benefit you in the long run?

914, wow. Do you also not u... (Below threshold)

914, wow. Do you also not understand a difference between 1988 and 2003?

They're different times you see. Therefore something can be true in 1988 and not be true in 2003.

So how do you tell if something is true? You look and see.

If you look and see in 2003, and find no evidence to support something, but then say it is certain and supported by evidence, then what is that?

Is that truth, or a lie? You tell me.

#42There's ... (Below threshold)
914:

#42


There's just no fixin' dumb.

Good luck with the BDS/PDS

Next, in my universe, th... (Below threshold)
john:

Next, in my universe, the WMD issue was not the whole justification for the invasion. It was not even the main one.

Let's hear it from Bush himself:

"part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_calls_Lebanon_aid_troops_0821.html

Jay, are you sure you didn't originally write this post for The Onion?

Jim, What part of "must pro... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Jim, What part of "must prove the destruction of WMD" is so hard for you to grasp? We know he had them. He didn't prove he had destroyed them. In fact, he obfuscated the whole thing.

Maybe you think Saddam was trustworthy. If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I would be glad to sell to you.

BTW, did you save any of the %5.25 you were paid 14 years ago? If so, you still have it.

Jim, What part of ... (Below threshold)
Jim, What part of "must prove the destruction of WMD" is so hard for you to grasp?

The part that connects it to whether or not Fleischer made a true statement.

See, what you're proposing is this:

1. The Bush administration said, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

2. In 2003, they did not know that for a fact at all.

3. Because the Bush administration said that Saddam would have to prove he didn't have WND's, somehow that creates fact.

How does the Bush administration's statement that Saddam would have to prove it, change not knowing something for a fact, into knowing it for a fact?

You do realize that just because the Bush administration said something, that doesn't mean it was true right? That they are human beings no more or less divine than others, whose statements don't by themselves alter the universe?

Here, Rick, let me put it t... (Below threshold)

Here, Rick, let me put it to you this way:

What could Saddam have done to prove that he didn't have WMD's, that he did not do?

914, good luck with your li... (Below threshold)

914, good luck with your life. I hope and am sure that you don't apply the same logic skills you do here to your work.

Good luck with ODS. Meanwhile, we'll keep putting back together the mess of America you're good ol' GWB made. So it is...had to be done with Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, and the first Bush. So it is again.

Sure jim sure. If ... (Below threshold)
914:

Sure jim sure.

If I were in saddams shoes I would have held onto my power, palaces and billions of U.S. dollars instead of hiding in a dark rat hole for months on end and ultimately having my neck stretched for WMD's that did not exist?

Makes about as much sense as your logic.

Jimmy x is stuck on stupid.... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jimmy x is stuck on stupid. Driven by irrational hatred towards a president that beat the liberals ass two times. Now we have the most incompetent foreign policy leaders in our history. As far as Egypt I call them the 3 Stooges. Obama, Clinton and the Intelligience Director. Not.A.Clue.

GW Bush on the other hand had world intelligience organizations reporting Saddam had WMD. Yet, they live in denial of that. The cease fire agreement with Saddam was ignored by Saddam but the jim's of the world deny that. I will say that had Jim X and his candian butt buddy had been around in the early 1940's they wouldn't have wanted to go into Germany. After all, Japan attacked us. The Jewish community thanks you guys. Liberals talk a great humanitarian game but they don't live it. Conservatives don't talk it we DO IT. ww

Jim, we did find WMD. They... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Jim, we did find WMD. They were older ones that had not been destroyed. Saddam would have needed to have shown the WMD he created (or at least the raw materials, the ones he had used (whooops, the Kurds would have been a problem for him), and the ones destroyed. Not only did he not do that, he prevented the inspectors from going any place any time. The inspections were a charade.

Then, conveniently, you leave off the next paragraph in your reference:

"But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens."

We always need to check your references to find what you omitted. Do you go through life cherry picking?

914, you know that Saddam d... (Below threshold)

914, you know that Saddam didn't have WMD's right? You at least realize that now, right?

Because if there were any, we would have found even a sign of them.

So if you were Saddam and had no WMD's, and you tell us this; and you're inspected repeatedly by teams of unbiased international experts, and they confirm you don't have 'em;

and other nations don't think you have WMD's, and our own intelligence sources either doubt you have WMD's or are obviously lying - what else would you have done?

Please tell me.

Jim, we did find W... (Below threshold)
Jim, we did find WMD. They were older ones that had not been destroyed.

Please see the difference between 1988 and 2003. None of the WMD's that were discovered were in any way usable as weapons. The nerve gas had aged, and the rockets had rusted. The most damage they could do to a person would be if they were dropped on their toe.

The Bush Administration didn't say, "We know for sure Saddam has completely unusable and non-threatening rusted WMD's that might have been dangerous ten years ago."

I mean, really.

They said they knew for sure, they really didn't know for sure, therefore they lied. Why can't you just admit the Bush administration lied? What's so hard about it?

Jim, you need to have your ... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:
Wildwillie, I don't even kn... (Below threshold)

Wildwillie, I don't even know where to start with you. If you would agree to accept facts, I might post some that would prove the Bush administration knew no such thing.

Then again, I posted them before, and that hasn't had any lasting impact either.

I guess it's pleasant in the short term to live in a world where unpleasant facts are forgotten as quickly as possible. Seems a shame tho.

You realize, Jim, don't you... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

You realize, Jim, don't you that "I guess it's pleasant in the short term to live in a world where unpleasant facts are forgotten as quickly as possible. Seems a shame tho" is directly aplicable to you?

jim x wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x wrote:

Saddam was repeatedly inspected by teams of international experts, including ex-Marine Scott Ritter - and no WMD's were turned up.

This is misleading. Ritter testified in Congress that UNSCOM had evidence that Saddam had nuke components. UNSCOM also had evidence of biological weapons research, and there were credible allegations that Saddam was testing anthrax on living humans. All from the late '90s. Ritter resigned because he believed that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program, thwarting the inspections, and that the UN wasn't doing anything about it.

It was made clear that the invasion was necessary because Saddam had thwarted the inspections and appeared to be putting together his WMD program. UK, US, and Israeli intelligence all indicated this. The invasion was preemptive. It would have been a much tougher nut to crack once Saddam had a few tactical nukes or nerve gas canisters to lob at our troops.

Rick, you need to read your... (Below threshold)

Rick, you need to read your own article.

In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out....

The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.

This skeptic is noting exactly that.

A couple of mustard gas containers that some US soldiers bought on the street? Some old bullets in disrepair that tested positive for chemicals, that were found in an Al Qaeda cache?

Come on now.

And the right wing, includi... (Below threshold)
Woop:

And the right wing, including this blog and this author, have repeatedly attempted to assure readers that there WERE WMDs, they were just spirited out of the country or hidden so well that nobody could find them. HAHAHHA

Now that we have a confessed liar - the right tells us that they knew it was a lie all along.

Amazing crap there gang. You cite Rick Santorum as saying there are WMDs then you act like you never claimed there were.

What lying hypocrites.

I guess it's pleas... (Below threshold)
I guess it's pleasant in the short term to live in a world where unpleasant facts are forgotten as quickly as possible. Seems a shame tho" is directly aplicable to you?

Rick, I get that is something *you feel* its applicable to me. And I can state I think it's applicable to many here.

How do we find out who's right? We try to get as objective as we can, with facts and reason.

You don't want to think the Bush administration lied.

I remind you that the Bush administration said it was a KNOWN FACT - certain - that Saddam **currently had in 2003* WMD's which were such a threat that we had to invade immediately.

I remind you that the evidence of multiple inspections in 2002 and 2003 showed no WMD's that were such a threat, no program that was a threat.

I remind you that, from internal documents we now have including what is at the top of this article (!!!) that international and US intelligence in 2001, 2002 and 2003 showed no WMD's that were a threat, and no program that was a threat.

I remind you again, now latest, that even seven years after the invastion we have yet to find anything that was such a threat as the Bush administration claimed to know as a fact. Not suspect - know.

I ask you to explain how saying something is known as a fact, when it is not known a fact, can be anything but lying.

They said they knew for ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

They said they knew for sure, they really didn't know for sure, therefore they lied.

Cherry picking and taking statements out of context (or not providing it) as you've been rightly and repeatedly called out for doing in this thread, would lead one down the "they lied" path.

But there's one very important thing that gets left out of this debate: How intel analysis is delivered.

Intelligence analysis of a given situation is never described in absolutes. Things are described as having "high confidence," or "low confidence" due to varying factors—ex: reliability of sources, information, evidence, etc. So again, if there are NO absolutes in intelligence analysis, then it would be flat out stupid for "they" to speak in absolutes, which "they" did NOT—unless one wants to continue cherry picking and taking statements out of context.

But even more improtant, in order to lie, "they" would have had to have have foreknowledge that there were, in fact, no WMD. This was not case. It wasn't until *after* the liberation of Iraq that the intel was proven wrong. Embarrassing and aggravating as hell? Yes. But that doesn't mean "they" (or anyone else) lied.

Two things. First, you wer... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Two things. First, you were arguing there were no WMD and Saddam had done all he could be expected to do so. That clearly is an incorrect position. Now, you are trying to claim there were some, but they were not a threat.

I also add this quote:

"I was having lunch with Dr. Laurie Mylroie, one of America's leading students of terrorism in general, and Iraqi terrorism in particular. Laurie was beside herself with anger. Why wasn't the Bush administration citing Gen. James Clapper, the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, who said that satellite imagery proved conclusively that shortly before the war's outbreak, Iraq had transferred its weapons of mass destruction to Syria? Why wasn't it quoting Gen. Georges Sada, deputy chief of Saddam's air force, or Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's chief-of-staff, both of whom also claimed that Saddam's weapons had been transferred to Syria? Why was it so tongue-tied, so unsure of itself, so unwilling to answer its critics? Didn't anybody in the White House realize that if the Democrats' charges went unanswered, they would fatally undermine the entire case for the war?"

This is from:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/05/the-man-who-elected-barack-oba

and is taking a shot at Rove.

Then, we have these WMD that were found:

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

*

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
*

Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

Then there is this one saying satellite photos show WMD going to Syria:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/

I have thought for a long time a lot of WMD went to Syria.

We also had this story of a roadside bomb in 2004 containing sarin gas.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Ok, this is it and I'm done... (Below threshold)

Ok, this is it and I'm done for the day.

Iwogisdead, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not intentionally trying to be misleading.

Yes, that's when and why Ritter quit - in the late 1998.

In 2002 and 2003, he had this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Commentary_on_Iraq.27s_lack_of_WMDs

We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)

Don't you guys realize that... (Below threshold)
j.l.:

Don't you guys realize that this is what people do when they've done nothing wrong? When you've got nothing to hide the logical choice is of course to to keep U.N. inspectors out of your country. That's just what innocent people do. We've got nothing to hide, but there's no way you're checking on it. And it makes no difference that part of the cease-fire "agreement" after invading Kuwait included agreeing to allow those inpectors in. And, as said above, the WMDs were only one out of 23 U.N. justifications for invading. Oh, and the fact that they were shooting at our fighters doesn't matter either. Just because that alone, would, at any other time in history, be justification enough for invasion doesn't matter. And the minor fact that they tried to kill one our presidents doesn't, either. Don't you understand Liberal "logic"? But back here on earth, it's sort of like arresting a guy for 23 different offenses- murder, robbery, theft, home invasion, ect., ect. He's found out to have not committed one of those 23 offenses (maybe). If you're a Liberal you let him go. If you're sane, you don't.

Cherry picking an... (Below threshold)
Cherry picking and taking statements out of context (or not providing it) as you've been rightly and repeatedly called out for doing in this thread, would lead one down the "they lied" path.

Please show one statement I've quoted that is at odds with the rest of it's context.

As for this,

But even more improtant, in order to lie, "they" would have had to have have foreknowledge that there were, in fact, no WMD. This was not case. It wasn't until *after* the liberation of Iraq that the intel was proven wrong. Embarrassing and aggravating as hell? Yes. But that doesn't mean "they" (or anyone else) lied.

Do you understand the different between "known fact" and "suspicion"?

If you say something is a known fact, then it should be a known fact. If you suspect something but have no evidence, then you should say it's a suspicion.

Is that the same Scott Ritt... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Is that the same Scott Ritter who missed the yellowcake sent to Canada? Why, yes it is.

But, you have argued there were no WMD, and we have shown there were. You tried to argue Saddam did all he was asked and we have shown he did not.

Regardless, the meme that no WMD were ever found has been shown to be wrong.

Speaking of lying about WMD... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Speaking of lying about WMDs...

Posted by Lorie Byrd

Published: June 22, 2006 - 12:10 AM

One day the story of WMD in Iraq will be known, at least partially. For now, the information is coming out in bits and pieces. Bottom line -- those who said there was no WMD in Iraq were wrong. (Using the definition and standard they set for President Bush, I guess that means they were lying, right?)

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2006/06/22/wmd-in-iraq.php

Looks like Byrd was lying.

First, you were ar... (Below threshold)
First, you were arguing there were no WMD and Saddam had done all he could be expected to do so. That clearly is an incorrect position.

If it is incorrect, then prove it wrong. Show me one thing Saddam could have done in 2002 and 2003 to prove he didn't have WMD, that he did not do.

Now, you are trying to claim there were some, but they were not a threat.

No, that's how you want to take it.

Unless you're claiming that the Bush administration were saying we should invade Iraq and cause the deaths of thousands of US soldiers because there might be two canisters of something that could be *made into* mustard gas and about ten bullets.

Is that seriously what you are arguing?

As for the uranium, that's stuff that was already found and identified and sealed up before the invasion!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

The chemical agents were created AFTER THE INVASION -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

And those 17 warheads were 1980's era Soviet missiles, with cyclosarin so thin and deteriorated as to be useless according to the US military.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

Another of the same type in fact exploded when a soldier went near it, without harming him - that's what led them to look for the rest. Which is what's referenced in your Fox article. Quoting from the same article:

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

I mean, Rick, really. You're against the facts here. Why do you keep arguing? Why is it so hard to admit that the Bush administration lied?

When you've got no... (Below threshold)
When you've got nothing to hide the logical choice is of course to to keep U.N. inspectors out of your country.

Yes - but Saddam LET IN INSPECTORS IN 2002 AND 2003.

And they DIDN'T FIND ANY WMD'S OR WEAPONS PROGRAMS.

And THEY WERE ALLOWED TO LOOK EVERYWHERE. There is literally no place the inspectors asked to look, that they did not look. This extended even to Saddam's own palace.

So, can you see how that shows Saddam didn't have anything to hide - because unbiased international experts examined EVERY SINGLE PLACE HE COULD HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE IN??

I'm typing it in caps, because you guys just seem to keep not getting it.

And it's time, past time, for me to give up on it. It just keeps blowing my mind.

Oh, for craps sake.<b... (Below threshold)

Oh, for craps sake.

But, you have argued there were no WMD, and we have shown there were.

No you have not. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" means "Weapon that can destroy things a lot".

Please show how some bullets that couldn't be fired, and something that could be made into mustard gas one day, can right now destroy things a lot.

I'm serious. Show me how that happens right now, and I'll admit you were right and go shout GWB's name in the streets.

You tried to argue Saddam did all he was asked and we have shown he did not.

Where did you show that??

Show me that post. What number, what time?

What one thing could Saddam have done, that he did not?

And I'll put it in caps so ... (Below threshold)
J.L.:

And I'll put it in caps so you get it. THEY SHOT AT OUR FIGHTERS. TRIED TO KILL ONE OF OUR PRESIDENTS. DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND? NOT ALL 23 JUSTIFICATIONS HAD TO BE MET. JUST ONE. THAT'S WHAT JAY WAS SAYING IN HIS ORIGINAL POST.

jim x, you are missing my p... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x, you are missing my point.

Ritter was clear in testimony that the inspections had been thwarted and that Iraq had nuke components. That testimony, under oath, was based on his experience as an inspector. What is the basis for his speculation post-1998?

UK, US, and Israeli intelligence, in 2002, said that Iraq was re-constituting. Was Bush to rely on Ritter's post-1998 speculations and ignore the current intelligence put on his desk?

The 2002 and 2003 inspections did not find WMD (except some precursor to nerve gas), but the reports were also clear that those inspections were minimal and could not verify compliance with 1441.

It's pointless to use what we know now as far as WMD to evaluate what happened eight years ago. The intelligence presented to Bush led to the conclusion that military action was required.

Which is why the Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution, and why Senators Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards voted in favor of it. The Congress had the NIE (including the contrary intelligence evaluation) when the IWR was passed. The Resolution was the best judgment of all those people in 2002.

"One way or another, we are... (Below threshold)
j.l.:

"One way or another, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb.4, 1998. "We have known for a long time that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002. "Iraq's search for (WMDs) has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Forget it folks. Trying to ... (Below threshold)
914:

Forget it folks. Trying to fit square logic into a circle jerk of liberal pansiness wont work. Its tried day after day here and they are incapable of digging their collective heads out of Barry's brown bunghole.

But even more improtant,... (Below threshold)
john:

But even more improtant, in order to lie, "they" would have had to have have foreknowledge that there were, in fact, no WMD. This was not case. It wasn't until *after* the liberation of Iraq that the intel was proven wrong. Embarrassing and aggravating as hell? Yes. But that doesn't mean "they" (or anyone else) lied.

You have a very bizarre definition of lying.

"Your honor, I actually didn't know whether the defendant did it or not, so when I said under oath that he didn't do it, I wasn't technically lying."

You forget, john, that you'... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

You forget, john, that you're talking to the Dumbest Motherfuckers On The Planet.

If they weren't the Dumbest Motherfuckers On The Planet, they would argue something along the lines of 'Iraq was liberated because of a bunch of white lies--the ends justify the means'.

But we know what's actually the case, and thus we understand why these monsters will go to their graves with clean consciences. Pity them.

What is the basis ... (Below threshold)
What is the basis for his speculation post-1998?

The same facts everyone else had, plus his own experience and knowledge. Which is how he turned out to be, um, absolutely right when the entire Bush Administration's statements were proven wrong.

You know, that little thing.

The 2002 and 2003 inspections did not find WMD (except some precursor to nerve gas), but the reports were also clear that those inspections were minimal and could not verify compliance with 1441.

No, in fact that is not what the reports were clear about at all. Do I have to google the actual reports for you? Do I have to actually look up for you how Hans Blix, the head of the inspection team, came to the conclusion that Iraq had no WMD?

Perhaps I do. Here it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html

How much longer did Hans say it would take to verify Iraq's full compliance? "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months. "

At this moment, can we pause and note how every single point claiming that the Bush administration did not lie, has been refuted with an easy trip to Google?

It's pointless to use what we know now as far as WMD to evaluate what happened eight years ago.

The point isn't what we knew now. The point is what we knew THEN. And:

- the inspectors found nothing, after they had full cooperation with Iraqis

- our own intelligence AT THE TIME found nothing and had NO evidence any Iraqi WMD existed

- as this very article starts out stating, sources which other nations and our own knew were untrustworthy were treated as known fact, and any sources which presented an evidence-based view were downplayed.

Therefore - in this complete absence of knowledge - to say that something is a known fact can only be a lie.

Really, it can't be anything else. We all know this.

If you don't want to see that, then I guess I can't get you to see that. I don't understand it, but that's alright. I guess I never will.

And just to be complete, th... (Below threshold)

And just to be complete, the rationale for the Joint Resolution was not so Bush could invade, it was that he could use the the threat of Saddam to allow inspections for his WMD.

And the NIE that Congress saw was an incomplete cherrypicking that included massaged data, left out contrary opinions, and treated untrusted sources like Chalabi and the dude mentioned right at this article as if they were the Apostles of the Lord.

I officially give up. I can only hope that, within your own minds, these facts made at least some temporary dent in your worldviews. Just peek in and chip at it, and maybe make you consider that maybe some of what you believe is worth examining with facts.

And just to be complete,... (Below threshold)

And just to be complete, the rationale for the Joint Resolution was not so Bush could invade, it was that he could use the the threat of Saddam to allow inspections for his WMD.

Ah, the Hillary Clinton Defense. "I only voted to THREATEN Saddam, not to carry out the threat! My vote was for bluffing!"

-The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Seems like "I don't read for the things I vote for" predates ObamaCare.

J.

Since Jim X is so caught up... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Since Jim X is so caught up in details and minutia, I'd like him to show where the words 'threaten' and 'bluff' even show up in the resolution. I have not read the document in quite a while, but I seem to recall an actual authorization to USE FORCE.

Don't you just love the way... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Don't you just love the way this keeps getting rehashed? As if by sheer repetition of the talking points of the Left that eventually sufficient people will, having examined the info on their own, somehow come around to an "OMG Bush lied!" viewpoint?

But yet the evidence simply doesn't bear out that conclusion. And no matter how you try to parse it, there's not any way it could.

Don't you just love the ... (Below threshold)
john:

Don't you just love the way this keeps getting rehashed?

Not really. I join you in wishing Jay would stop rehashing it.

But yet the evidence simply doesn't bear out that conclusion.

Good debate strategy. Instead of actually rebutting any points or offering evidence, just declare without comment that the other side has failed. Let me try... "the evidence totally bears out that conclusion." Hey, by your standards, I win!

The things that jump out at... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

The things that jump out at me from the conversation here are the following:

Aside from the tone and choice of language, I count 9 ad hominem posts from the Left and 9 from the Right (#6, 10, 25, 41, 55, 59,67, 75, 76 vs #7, 12, 14, 21, 32, 34, 42, 50, 74). If nothing else it shows the hightened emotions and muddies the conversation.

More interestingly, I found no posts from the Right which were clearly false or misleading apart from the contention that President Bush, along with most elected officials, intelligence agencies, and military experts, contended that Iraq had WMD in 2002-3 (which is not known to be false but is admittedly controversial), but I did find 22 claims or assertions from the Left which were either demonstrably false or attempted to present a false claim by using invalid support (e.g. cherry-picking statements and taking quotes out of context); in posts #15, 16, 23, 27, 30, 31, 35, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 52, 53 ,58, 60, 68, 69, 70, 77, and 78.

Bush Hate would seem to be a terminal condition.

Since Jay Tea finally wants... (Below threshold)

Since Jay Tea finally wants to respond, but yet doesn't want to deal directly with how the basis for his article was refuted by Tina back at comment number # 8, I'm pulled back in yet again.

First, Jay, Tina has proven you wrong re: the Bush administration's definitive statements on Saddam's WMD. Are you ready to suck it up and deal with the truth, and amend your article to reflect that fact?

Second - ah, yes, Jay, the Hillary Clinton defense. A defense which works because it's based on facts. To quote from your own text.

-The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

...which was shown not to be a threat by repeated inspections in 2002 and 2003, our own intelligence from 2002 and 2003 that was delivered to the White House, but the White House didn't share with Congress, AND the intelligence of our allies.

and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

...said resolutions which were actually being enforced with only the threat of US invasion. This confirmed by Hans Blix, himself. And when, as also pointed out to you via quotes and citations Blix estimated it would only take a few more months to confirm Iraq's lack of any dangerous WMD - at which point we could remain concentrated on the ACTUAL threat, Al Qaeda - Bush invaded anyway.

See! Those darn fact-y things again.

Whatever.

Did sodomy hussein use ga... (Below threshold)
Olsoljer:

Did sodomy hussein use gas to kill the kurds? Is that not a weapon of mass destruction? Therefore he possessed weapons of mass destruction - you seem disappointed that he didn't have a nuke in his bedroom. Was he supposed to have a wmd that you approved of or met YOUR criteria?
Your denial of a proven fact of wmds makes you a few points lower than an absolute imbecile.

As for DJ, really.<bl... (Below threshold)

As for DJ, really.

...I found no posts from the Right which were clearly false or misleading apart from the contention that President Bush, along with most elected officials, intelligence agencies, and military experts, contended that Iraq had WMD in 2002-3

No posts from the right were clearly false or misleading - besides the entire basis for the article?

Since Jay Tea stated at the outset that the Bush administration never stated definitely Saddam had WMD - and Tina easily provided 5 examples of them stating exactly that?

That's like saying, "no crimes were committed except for that little old murder."

As for the rest of your comments, please point out the ad hominem in # 41, 55, 67, 75. And note that saying something that hurts feelings isn't necessarily ad hominem. What's being noted is relevant and central to the discussion - **facts are having little or no effect here**.

If facts DID have an effect, then Jay Tea would have realized the impact of Tina's direct disproof of the central basis of his entire article and adjusted it.

But there you guys have it.

This is leaving besides all... (Below threshold)

This is leaving besides all the other arguments from the Right which were both off-point and dispensed with. If you want to pick up a particular one, I'll go back into the weeds - as long as we can agree that if something is proven factually wrong, the person who stated it will admit it here.

All I want is a country where people agree to a baseline of respecting historically established facts. We don't have to agree on what we should do. But we should at least be able to agree on respecting facts for recent history that we all lived through.

Olsoljer, see post # 38.</p... (Below threshold)

Olsoljer, see post # 38.

Tina effectively proved Jay... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Tina effectively proved Jay tea was in error regarding his assertion, if he had integrity he would just come out and admit he was wrong. It happens. There is a lot to cover, and as a blogger it's not like there are editors checking his facts.

But, if he has any regard for the truth he'd correct the post. There are other grounds for defending the war, if you are so inclined, but the actual facts do matter.

jimx I didn't read your pos... (Below threshold)
warchild:

jimx I didn't read your post before I wrote. You effectively covered it.

John - Instead of actual... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

John - Instead of actually rebutting any points or offering evidence, just declare without comment that the other side has failed.

If you were to declare that the sky is actually red with green polkadots, I don't think it'd be necessary to drag out a spectroscope to disprove you. A simple "No, it's not" would suffice on my part, because if you're seeing that it's evident you need either the care of an ophthalmic specialist or psychiatric help, and either way I'm not going to be quickly convincing you otherwise.

Because almost a decade down the line it's not about the root facts at this particular time, it's about belief - a belief based in the interpretations of events, and you're going to be looking for any interpretation that matches your belief.

Jim X - "But we should at least be able to agree on respecting facts for recent history that we all lived through."

I agree on that. Except... that 'respect' should only be for your particular interpretation of the facts, right?

I certainly have no problem with you believing what you do, even though I think you're wrong. I also don't see why it's necessary to justify MY interpretations to you (or anyone, for that matter) based on what I observed at the time, digging into as much of the history and commentary and documented evidence as I could find since, and not taking any - ANY - political slant one way or the other until I'd researched things to my own satisfaction.

Which I'll admit didn't take too long - the facts seemed to speak for themselves.

My conclusion, based on the evidence I've seen, is that we did indeed think there were WMDs. WMDs were found. Convoys were reported going into Syria, which were never explained. There were numerous reports from media correspondents at the time of weapons caches with drums of 'insecticide' stored with conventional munitions. (And seeing as conventional insecticides use the same base chemicals and depend on interrupting the same biological process as do nerve gasses, I found it interesting that they'd be stored with the munitions. Unless they had a REAL camel spider problem.)

Add in that the Saddam regime had a tendency to bury stuff in the desert (IE the MIGs that were buried) and it's not at all certain to me that he 'didn't have any WMDs'.

Add in the Wikileaks WMD memos, and it boils down to a strictly binary response.

Did he have WMDs? Yes. (Of course, that's from Wired - notoriously right-wing, right?)

And as I said before - at this point it doesn't matter. You can believe what you believe - and it doesn't change anything at all.

Now if you're going into th... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Now if you're going into the POLITICAL aspects of it all - you might just as well start talking religion or abortion, there'll be no solution that'll satisfy everyone.

Jim, warbaby, et al, the th... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Jim, warbaby, et al, the thing that blows your position to itty-bitty bits, is that you take things to extremes.

No WMD stockpiles, in the nominal military sense, were found. You have that and it's a valid point. But you continues to make a number of very false assertions, including:

The WMD assertion was the main reason for the invasion - The decision was based on 23 separate causes, the WMD question was not the only one and claiming so is a falsehood;

Bush rushed the nation into war - the debate and decision played out for months. The resolution followed domestic and international debates and countless diplomatic efforts. To pretend Bush wanted war is a falsehood;

Bush lied - Lying is not simply to say something someone else does not agree with. President Bush was presented with intelligence, military, and political documentation and testimony that, in consensus, said Saddam had WMDs in the past, was clearly pursuing them in the present (2002), and if he was able to make them, would use them. That testimony, by the way, included statements by both Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as many leading Democrats, who has access to the very same intelligence reports and briefings as President Bush. Even if we ignore the movement of materials into Syria just before the invasion, even if we ignore the history of Iraq 1985-2002, even if we ignore the documents showing development of the nuclear and BW research all the way through 2002, even if we decide to reject the binary components found in reserve bases, the firing on reconnaissance aircraft when they approached suspected research facilities and the obstruction and subterfuge by Iraqi officials when inspecting facilities, there is no support - at all - for even a single contention that President Bush or anyone in his White House has reason to believe the WMD were not there, or that Saddam Hussein had abandoned his programs. To claim Bush lied is a falsehood, and a boorish slander.

I could go on, but if you still refuse to understand where the line is and when you crossed it, you are just never going to be able to accept those facts - the real ones, not the crap spewed here by the Left and spun as 'fact'.

Jay Tea:Next... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea:

Next, in my universe, the WMD issue was not the whole justification for the invasion. It was not even the main one.

jim x:

"part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction."

Apparently I also live in Jay Tea's alternate universe, where "whole" and "main" don't mean the same thing.

You can quit beatin' jimx a... (Below threshold)
914:

You can quit beatin' jimx and warbaby with cluebats anytime now...

They give new meaning to 'Stuck hopelessly on Stupid!'

McGeeHee, that quote's from... (Below threshold)

McGeeHee, that quote's from John's comment and not mine. But, since my name's brought up I feel free to comment.

I don't see how that applies to the question of whether or not the Bush administration stated definitively that Saddam had existing and dangerous WMD's, at that time, in 2002 and 2003.

Because, as shown by Tina, me and others, these statements DID occur in the **one and only** existing universe.

DJ, ...th... (Below threshold)

DJ,

...the thing that blows your position to itty-bitty bits, is that you take things to extremes.

Please show how any one 'extreme' thing I've said which is factually incorrect.

No WMD stockpiles, in the nominal military sense, were found. You have that and it's a valid point.

Thanks for that at least, but it's more than that - at the time of those statements there was NO evidence or even solid intelligence for current WMD stockpiles. But the Bush administration falsely claimed it was a known fact.

This matters because the central point of the article is:

In my universe, things unfolded a little bit differently. First up, no official in the Bush administration ever stated definitively stated that Saddam had WMDs.

As for this,

The WMD assertion was the main reason for the invasion - The decision was based on 23 separate causes, the WMD question was not the only one and claiming so is a falsehood;

First, I just read the resolution.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Of the 23 statements on that page, 1 describes the history of the Kuwait invasion, and 7 claim how Congress or the President has legal authority. Of the remaining 15 actual justifications to potentially invade, 10 directly state "weapons of mass destruction".

Ten out of 15 easily qualifies as 'main'.

Go read it for yourself.

This is of course besides your assertion that I claimed that WMD was the ONLY stated cause for invasion - which I did not say.

I guess if you feel nitpicky I should have said, "There were other reasons, but the overwhelming stated rationale for the joint resolution was..." If so, I concede the point. Consider my argument so rephrased.

I agree on that. E... (Below threshold)
I agree on that. Except... that 'respect' should only be for your particular interpretation of the facts, right?

No. Unless you can explain how "The Bush administration said X was true, when the Bush Administration actually knew X was not true" is an *interpretation*.

Since:

1 - We know that in 2003 the Bush Administration said x - that Saddam's 2003 WMD's was a "known fact".

2 - We know that in 2003, this x - Saddam's 2003 WMD's - were NOT a known fact

Can you please explain how either of those statemenst are interpretations, and not objective facts?

My conclusion, based on the evidence I've seen, is that we did indeed think there were WMDs.

Let's say that was so.

Do you understand the difference between "think" and "know"?

Therefore, to say you KNOW something is true when you only THINK it is true, is to lie.

How can that be any other way? Can I go into court and say "You honor, I know such-and-such stole my wallet" when I only think he did, without evidence?

WMDs were found.

No, they were not. See? That's another example of respecting facts. If you want to go all Clintonesque, some things were found afterwards which either *could have made into* a WMD someday, OR was once a WMD in the 1980's - and is now so decayed it was less dangerous than a chalupa.

But no existing dangerous weapons of mass destruction were found, at all. Although it's true one soldier actually fell on one and apparently got nasty abrasion. That's totally worth thousands of dead soldiers and letting actual murderers go free.

Convoys were reported going into Syria, which were never explained.

Nope. There were some reports of convoys going into Syria, which were never even *confirmed*. If we're going to be talking about facts, we should be separating them from unconfirmed rumor.

Oh and DJ, this is somethin... (Below threshold)

Oh and DJ, this is something else also.

Bush lied ...President Bush was presented with intelligence, military, and political documentation and testimony that, in consensus, said Saddam had WMDs in the past, was clearly pursuing them in the present (2002), and if he was able to make them, would use them.

Let's say that's all true.

Bush and his various spokespersons didn't say, "It's a known fact Saddam **will make WMD's if he is able to**." They said it was a known fact that Saddam ALREADY HAD current and lethal WMD's.

Therefore to say you know someone has x, when you don't know that they have x, is to say something that is not true.

And sorry if I love American lives too much or something. But when trusting fighting men die needlessly for a lie, I think that's a horrible tragedy. Silly me.

Thank you for this much, Ji... (Below threshold)
President George W. Bush:

Thank you for this much, Jim. You have proven your dishonesty and fanatacism well beyond any reasonable doubt.

And I'll put it in... (Below threshold)
And I'll put it in caps so you get it. THEY SHOT AT OUR FIGHTERS. TRIED TO KILL ONE OF OUR PRESIDENTS. DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND? NOT ALL 23 JUSTIFICATIONS HAD TO BE MET. JUST ONE. THAT'S WHAT JAY WAS SAYING IN HIS ORIGINAL POST.

Thanks for putting it in caps. Now go read the article again. One paragraph before that, Jay said something that wasn't true - that no one in the Bush administration stated it was a known fact that Saddam had WMD's.

Then Tina showed that multiple members of the Bush administration had in fact done this.

That's what this is about. Do you get it now?

Thank you for this... (Below threshold)
Thank you for this much, Jim. You have proven your dishonesty and fanatacism well beyond any reasonable doubt.

Coming from you George, that must mean I'm paying attention to facts you don't like. So, thanks. I wish you had paid attention to them.

Now look Jim, even I... (Below threshold)
President Baraq Hussein Obama:

Now look Jim, even I think you're annoying and just plain wrong.

Please shut up.

Can you do that, or have you still not realized that none of the adults here takes you seriously anymore?

I agree with Mr. Bush and M... (Below threshold)
George Washington:

I agree with Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama.

If you want to give me a birthday present, please just go away, Jim.

It's the right thing to do.

Now Jim, sometimes you just... (Below threshold)
Bill Clinton:

Now Jim, sometimes you just have to know when you've been whipped.

No sense for you to keep making a fool of yourself by kicking at a dead horse. Much less doing to it what I was accused of doing ... better let that go, too.

Go on now, go find another thread to screw up. Once you do, you'll feel much better, I promise.

My plan is coming together.... (Below threshold)
Bizarro Superman:

My plan is coming together... Jay Tea you fool, you have opened the door for me to conquer the universe!

It's absolutely amazing - l... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

It's absolutely amazing - like talking to a brick wall.

Jim X, it's binary. Either he had them, or he didn't. There's no 'gray' area where he had them, but didn't have enough to matter or they were too old, or they were labeled as 'baby milk' and therefore shouldn't be counted, or... or... or... - he either had them, or he didn't. For him to be clear of WMD charges there'd have to be exactly ZERO wmd.

If he didn't have them - then there wouldn't be any found, right?

They were found.

What am I going to believe - your interpretation or my own lying eyes?

"There were some reports of convoys going into Syria, which were never even *confirmed*"

Yeah, like there wasn't anything ELSE going on at that point for the media to concentrate on.

U.S. intel: WMD went to Syria last year

U.S. intel: WMD went to Syria last year - Evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys

Posted: January 30, 2004
1:00 am Eastern

The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence Syria received Iraqi missiles and WMD in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

The evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys believed to be bringing missiles and WMD into Syria as well as assertions from Iraqi officials that ousted leader Saddam Hussein ordered such a transfer.

Still, the agencies fail to agree that sufficient evidence has been obtained to press the issue with the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad.

Importantly, CIA Director George Tenet shares this view, officials said.
I think at that point they looked at what was going on re Iraq, and Afghanistan, and just decided to squat on the info. It wouldn't be the first time that priority decisions were made that weren't appropriate in the long run - they didn't want to further piss off the ME by going after Syria.
David Kay, who resigned last week from the CIA-sponsored Iraq Survey Group, went further. Kay said Iraqi officials told his investigators that WMD was sent to Syria before the war in Iraq.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," Kay told the London Daily Telegraph. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
Ball? Dropped. Too much else going on.

One NICE thing about nerve agents, they tend to degrade over time in hot climates, and apparently Iraq didn't use any particular stabilization when they made their goodies. Given enough time, the problem takes care of itself.

And with all the Presidents... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

And with all the Presidents chiming in, I'm bowing out. Have fun, y'all.

Thank you, Mr. Lawson.... (Below threshold)
Thomas Jefferson:

Thank you, Mr. Lawson.

And Jim, either leave or bathe. Your presence is offending the ladies, and attracting swine ... oh, please pardon me Mr. Gore, I mistook you for something else.

No, no, you got it right th... (Below threshold)
Bill Clinton:

No, no, you got it right the first time, Thomas. Sorry Al, but you've REALLY let yourself go. And you can't blame 400 pounds of body fat on Climate Change or George W.

U.S. intel: WMD we... (Below threshold)
U.S. intel: WMD went to Syria last year

World Net Daily. Really?

You know whose word I'll take over theirs? US intelligence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

You know, the same bunch of people who accurately told the White House that Saddam had no WMD's, and weren't listened

One NICE thing abo... (Below threshold)
One NICE thing about nerve agents, they tend to degrade over time in hot climates, and apparently Iraq didn't use any particular stabilization when they made their goodies. Given enough time, the problem takes care of itself.

Exactly. One more reason why we didn't need to invade. But there I go with facts again...

Finally giving up. Stay with your realities. At least Jay Tea unintentionally admitted he's in an alternate universe. Unfortunately none of you do, and your unwillingness to deal with reality affects my life as well as yours. But, can't do much about it. Back to productive work instead.

Please stop beating me, Jim... (Below threshold)
The Dead Horse:

Please stop beating me, Jim!

Sure. Just admit a single p... (Below threshold)

Sure. Just admit a single proven fact.

Jim, warbaby, et ... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Jim, warbaby, et al, the thing that blows your position to itty-bitty bits, is that you take things to extremes.

No WMD stockpiles, in the nominal military sense, were found. You have that and it's a valid point. But you continues to make a number of very false assertions, including:

The WMD assertion was the main reason for the invasion - The decision was based on 23 separate causes, the WMD question was not the only one and claiming so is a falsehood;

Bush rushed the nation into war - the debate and decision played out for months. The resolution followed domestic and international debates and countless diplomatic efforts. To pretend Bush wanted war is a falsehood;

Bush lied - Lying is not simply to say something someone else does not agree with. President Bush was presented with intelligence, military, and political documentation and testimony that, in consensus, said Saddam had WMDs in the past, was clearly pursuing them in the present (2002), and if he was able to make them, would use them. That testimony, by the way, included statements by both Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as many leading Democrats, who has access to the very same intelligence reports and briefings as President Bush. Even if we ignore the movement of materials into Syria just before the invasion, even if we ignore the history of Iraq 1985-2002, even if we ignore the documents showing development of the nuclear and BW research all the way through 2002, even if we decide to reject the binary components found in reserve bases, the firing on reconnaissance aircraft when they approached suspected research facilities and the obstruction and subterfuge by Iraqi officials when inspecting facilities, there is no support - at all - for even a single contention that President Bush or anyone in his White House has reason to believe the WMD were not there, or that Saddam Hussein had abandoned his programs. To claim Bush lied is a falsehood, and a boorish slander.

I could go on, but if you still refuse to understand where the line is and when you crossed it, you are just never going to be able to accept those facts - the real ones, not the crap spewed here by the Left and spun as 'fact'.

DJ-doofus (I make it a point to always respond in kind to name calling. Although I'll be happy to stop when you do.)

Who are you arguing with? Seriously. You responded to everything but the actual point being made. Jay Tea stated: "no official in the Bush administration ever stated definitively stated that Saddam had WMDs"

This is an error. He should correct it. I made no statement about anything else. Correcting factual errors is important to those who care about things like facts. If that doesn't include you I'm not surprised.

Good move - change the goal... (Below threshold)
Ballkicker:

Good move - change the goalposts! First - did Saddam have WMDs? He did - so change to "Were they a threat?" or "Were they current, dangerous WMDs?"

Sweet! Nice changeup, Jim X! Dont be satisfied with the original goal, keep shoving it down the field!

And it wont change a damn thing, thats whats so entertaining about this. You guys can argue until your over 200 years old, and nothing will change!

F***ing A, dude.Sa... (Below threshold)

F***ing A, dude.

Saying WMD has to be dangerously threatening to be a WMD, is not changing the goalposts. It's defining a goalpost as a goalpost, and not just a random stick stuck in the ground near one end of the field.

They were found. What am... (Below threshold)
john:

They were found. What am I going to believe - your interpretation or my own lying eyes?

How about Bush himself? Will you believe Bush?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t"

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/22/president_bush_admits_iraq_had_no

How funny that you accuse others of "looking for any interpretation that matches your belief." I'm quoting Bush, and you're quoting Wired's interpretation of WikiLeaks.

As you said, you can believe what you believe - and it doesn't change anything at all. Some of us just prefer facts over beliefs.

Well, then, give me my coun... (Below threshold)
Saddams Ghost:

Well, then, give me my country back!

(But you can keep my kids. They were nasty little shits anyway.)

Is it hot in here, or is it just me? Must be downwind of a refinery - there's that burning sulfur smell again... And then the guards - 72 of the ugliest women who never laid hands on a burqua, all wanting to do the bungabunga all the time and no viagra in sight.

#121, for the win.... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

#121, for the win.

In case you didn't get what he was saying there, Ballkicker: something that does not pose a threat is not a weapon of mass destruction.

Anyone can make WMDs out of items purchased at hardware stores. Does the United States thereby have justification for invading every country with one or more Home Depots?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy